Difference between revisions of "Talk:Difficulty and Terrain Ratings"

From Cacheopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Is this a page which should exist?)
 
m (Talk:Geocaching.com Rating System moved to Talk:Difficulty and Terrain Ratings: Scout is right. The difficulty and terrain ratings aren't owned by Groundspeak.)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
Is it really GC.com's rating system?
 
Is it really GC.com's rating system?
 +
 +
Look at the credits again. I also had a hand in it. It was discussed on gc.com's forums, with Markwell and I perhaps doing the most wordsmithing. Brokenwing first captured it in code and Clayjar hosted it on his Web server. It is not gc.com's rating system. It is available for all to use. -- Scout
 +
 +
== half star example ==
 +
 +
The half-star example for terrain is:
 +
: For example, a 1½-star terrain rating could indicate a very easy hike (easier than typical 2-star terrain), but a cache location that is not wheelchair accessible.
 +
An anonymous edit changed that to:
 +
: For example, a 2½-star terrain rating could indicate an easy hike (easier than typical 3-star terrain), but a cache location that is more difficult to reach.
 +
I think the 1½-star example is better, because it indicates the current practice of rating extremely easy hikes that are not wheelchair accessible as 1½-star terrain.
 +
Is there any reason to prefer the 2½-star example to the 1½-star example?
 +
<br>- [[User:NiraD|niraD]] 00:23, 28 April 2010 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 00:25, 13 November 2010

The rating system is hosted on ClayJar's site and was developed by ClayJar, Markwell, and Brokenwing.

Is it really GC.com's rating system?

Look at the credits again. I also had a hand in it. It was discussed on gc.com's forums, with Markwell and I perhaps doing the most wordsmithing. Brokenwing first captured it in code and Clayjar hosted it on his Web server. It is not gc.com's rating system. It is available for all to use. -- Scout

[edit] half star example

The half-star example for terrain is:

For example, a 1½-star terrain rating could indicate a very easy hike (easier than typical 2-star terrain), but a cache location that is not wheelchair accessible.

An anonymous edit changed that to:

For example, a 2½-star terrain rating could indicate an easy hike (easier than typical 3-star terrain), but a cache location that is more difficult to reach.

I think the 1½-star example is better, because it indicates the current practice of rating extremely easy hikes that are not wheelchair accessible as 1½-star terrain. Is there any reason to prefer the 2½-star example to the 1½-star example?
- niraD 00:23, 28 April 2010 (EDT)

Personal tools